As we retrospect, the bizarre aspects of the 2024 election seem to center on pet owners, particularly those who have a preference for either cats or dogs. However, it became apparent that it was the canine supporters who took the largest bite of the electoral pie. More than half of pet owners, whether inclining toward cats or our furry canine friends, ended up voting for President-elect Donald Trump, with their decision greatly influenced by those with a soft spot for dogs, based on a poll involving over 120,000 participants. Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris, on the other hand, failed to harness the support of pet owners, particularly those who owned dogs.
The election results made one thing abundantly clear: pet owners favored Trump over Harris, with dog owners playing a decisive role in bolstering the Republican’s numbers. The cat owners found themselves bobbing on the waters of indecisiveness, split between the two rivals. It’s compelling to note that two-thirds of the polled voters were found to be pet parents, a demographic that politicians tend to overlook. Evidently, Harris struggled to seize the influential pet owner vote share.
In an intriguing turn of events, past references by Trump’s running mate, Ohio Senator JD Vance, to ‘childless cat ladies’ momentarily emerged as an electoral issue. The poorly phrased comment, however, could not dent the strong support gained from women who ran a solo cat household. Vanishing into insignificance, this demographic of voters did little to tip the scales in favor of Harris, and Vance’s comments didn’t seem to disfavor the Republican representation in the eyes of pet owners.
Despite being childless or not, women who harbored cats and no dogs in their households were more inclined to tilt towards Harris rather than siding with pet owners who had both cats and dogs, or just dogs. The Democrat found support among 6 out of 10 women who owned cats but not dogs. Woman pet owners, who kept neither cats nor dogs, also leaned towards Harris at a similar rate. However, this momentum failed to carry over to the male demographic.“
As the numbers filtered through, it became clear that Trump managed to edge ahead of Harris in the vote count for male cat owners. The Republican managed to sway slightly more than half of this demographic group. It is not within our power to estimate the impact of Vance’s previous comments on Harris’ popularity among women, notably the ones with cats only. However, these voters were found to possess an ‘unfavorable’ or ‘somewhat unfavorable’ opinion about Vance, revealing a larger dissatisfaction towards the Republican party than women owning only dogs or a combination of cats and dogs.
While there was a distinct negative sentiment towards Trump and the Republican party among female voters, especially those owning only cats, some may argue that these voters were never quite within reach for Trump. A mere 4 out of 10 women owning only cats identified themselves as Republicans, showing a clear partisan divide. In retrospect, it appears Vance’s comments merely added to an already unfavorably tilted scale.
The aftermath of the 2024 elections presents a clear challenge for Democrats – winning over the dog owning voters. Having a dog appeared to resonate with the decision to support Trump, irrespective of the voter also owning a cat. As a result, the pet owner demographic, particularly dog owners, became a significant part of the electorate.
Bearing in mind, cat owners who solely owned felines formed only about 15% of the voters, their impact was significantly dwarfed by the swing groups: those who owned both cats and dogs, and those who had dogs only. The latter troves constituted 3 in 10 voters and represented a commanding influence among the electorates. The statistics revealed that Trump wooed about 6 in 10 men who only had dogs and managed to win about half of the women voters in this group.
Even with Harris’ campaigns attempting to appeal to cat owners, the Trump campaign did not necessarily reciprocate the same to dog owners. Trump, however, ignited a controversy with allegations of immigrants in Ohio engaging in unspeakable activities concerning pets. He failed to offer concrete proof, and there was no evidence to suggest that these shocking claims had any tangible impact on the voter decision-making process.
The influence of political affiliations cannot be overstated, as about 6 in 10 men with only dogs identified as Republicans. The same was true for around half of the female dog owners. The task staring at the Democrats – winning over dog lovers – appears to be an uphill battle with no evident shortcuts.
Interestingly, neither Trump nor Harris had pets, meaning the presidential campaigns were devoid of the usual canine charm that potentially could have influenced the outcome. The possibility remains that future campaigns could leverage the power of pets more effectively, introducing a little more ‘bark’ into the political game.